Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Fine, if you will insist on making me engage with the topic in a manner other than movie quotes.

Jaguar is the rough equivalent to Cadillac. 'Luxury' vehicles sold to elderly men who use them to drive to golf courses and go buy the Daily Express/NY Post.

How far has Jaguar fallen.

The Jaguar was an incredible sexy theoretically fast 2 seater from the 30's. A time when top cars were mobile art. At this point in time Jaguar was just a model name, built by SS. SS Jaguar 100. It wasn't an answer. It was a statement. Bold, fierce, fast. Worthy of the sleek cat that was its name sake. It's one luxury was speed. Simple compared to the radical curves found across the channel at the time.
That's why old golfers drive them, a vain attempt to inject excitement into a boring existence from a brand that had already been sucked dry when the last original E-type left the factory.

So you think that Jaguar should go full sports car and not waste time building crossovers and such?

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Fine, if you will insist on making me engage with the topic in a manner other than movie quotes.

Jaguar is the rough equivalent to Cadillac. 'Luxury' vehicles sold to elderly men who use them to drive to golf courses and go buy the Daily Express/NY Post.

If your driving to the golf course in your Jag it would be the Financial Times old boy

 Future War Cultist wrote:
So you think that Jaguar should go full sports car and not waste time building crossovers and such?

IMO, whatever they do, there should be a "sporty" feel to it. . . . Per the JAaaaag episode of Grand Tour, the Kray twins owned a mk X Jag (and per this thread, though I have not confirmed myself, criminal elements of the UK in the 60s had them) because they had more power than your average cop car.

Whatever a Jag "is", it should have speed/power and a good ride quality.

 darkness screamer wrote:

If your driving to the golf course in your Jag it would be the Financial Times old boy

Wot wot.

I hear 'Jaguar' and I think 'Alan Partridge' and Alan Partridge makes me think of the Daily Mail/Express.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
So you think that Jaguar should go full sports car and not waste time building crossovers and such?

IMO, whatever they do, there should be a "sporty" feel to it. . . . Per the JAaaaag episode of Grand Tour, the Kray twins owned a mk X Jag (and per this thread, though I have not confirmed myself, criminal elements of the UK in the 60s had them) because they had more power than your average cop car.

Whatever a Jag "is", it should have speed/power and a good ride quality.

Criminal elements certainly did have them. For years, Jags were seen as “gangster’s cars”, driven by everyone from spivs and conmen right up to crime bosses and armed robbers. That’s why they couldn’t use them as ministerial cars back in the day (Rover got that gig). This made them...cool, imo.

And they could really do with upping their performance. I think some people would overlook the reliability issues if jags could keep up or even outpace a Beamer (but that is a BIG ask).

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 darkness screamer wrote:

If your driving to the golf course in your Jag it would be the Financial Times old boy

Wot wot.

I hear 'Jaguar' and I think 'Alan Partridge' and Alan Partridge makes me think of the Daily Mail/Express.

But he drives a Lexus...after switching from Rovers.

It's more the general Partridge-esque Little Englander attitude than the specific character.

You know the type. Flat caps and driving gloves. A week in the same hotel in Alicante at the same time of year, every year.

Polo shirts, tucked in.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
So you think that Jaguar should go full sports car and not waste time building crossovers and such?

No. Remember the OP wanted to know what Jaguar was an answer to. However many cars are boring. Most cars seem Designed by a committee that probably doesn't like to drive and hampered by government regulations that ensure that each autobox is basically the same. This committee inspires bland choices often make little sense to the spirit of a car. That does not mean that they have to be sports cars to be exciting or evoke some emotional response that creates a market. For example, take the American minivan. From my point of view it was a horror show but it was what people wanted in the 1980's. Maximum space in the minimum package. Small enough to drive like a car and efficient enough to move a husband and wife with 1.7 children, or a sheet of plywood . None of the big wigs wanted to build them but Lee Iacocca knew how to hide projects, so bamb! we get an uncompromised tool and people love it for its commitment to function.

Another American example would be the Dodge Viper. Sexy! I remember basically what Val Balboni said about the Viper. Ok car, mediocre forward vision functional drive train. He didn't think it was exceptional until he heard the price tag. The Viper was cheap for a sports car, and that made it exceptional. It also had design features that made no sense. For example the Viper could do an easy 160mph but its targa top was only rated for 120mph. Believe it or not when the car was sold in Germany the American engineers were surprised the cars were being driven fast enough to tear the top off. Personally I think anyone who designs a car that can go 160mph but doesn't expect it to be driven at that speed where legal should be given a job somewhere that protects the rest of us from their stupidity. Dodge, like Boeing, decided to add a warning to the manual.

I could go even further about Fiats and oil changes, but I won't.
End of soap box rant.

I'd say they are closer to Mercedes than BMW

My best mate is a level 3 technician in a Jaguar garage. They are always very, very busy. And most of their work is under warranty. To be less cryptic, modern Jags are horribly unreliable. I love how they look but wouldn't buy one

You know what they say about Old Jags? They have issues when it rains. When it rains anywhere in the world in fact, it can cause an old Jags electronics to crap out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or was that MG's....yeah. Probably both.....

Funny when I lived in Germany the work trucks and semis were Mercedes and the taxis and police cars were BMW. The more I think about the less I want to compare them.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
You know what they say about Old Jags? They have issues when it rains. When it rains anywhere in the world in fact, it can cause an old Jags electronics to crap out.

I thought you were going to go with the tried and true "if there ain't no oil under 'em, there ain't no oil in 'em"

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
You know what they say about Old Jags? They have issues when it rains. When it rains anywhere in the world in fact, it can cause an old Jags electronics to crap out.

I thought you were going to go with the tried and true "if there ain't no oil under 'em, there ain't no oil in 'em"

My first car was self changing like that. Never had to change oil, just fill up a quart a week...

Cynista wrote:
I'd say they are closer to Mercedes than BMW

My best mate is a level 3 technician in a Jaguar garage. They are always very, very busy. And most of their work is under warranty. To be less cryptic, modern Jags are horribly unreliable. I love how they look but wouldn't buy one

Here is a question for the board...why can’t the British put cars together properly? It just seems to be an inherent weakness.

It's to do with British management.

I remember an article a long time ago in The Economist -- late 1980s. They looked at the UK car industry, which at the time was divided between, British, American, German and Japanese managed companies.

The Japanese had the best production quality, followed by the Germans, then American, and finally British. Nothing to do with the workers.

That makes sense. What do they do? Cheap out on parts? Treat the workers like gak?

But I thought the parent company was Indian?

I've compared GW with British car companies before on this forum. In each case the product can be prone to breakdowns, but has a lot of style.

 gorgon wrote:
I've compared GW with British car companies before on this forum. In each case the product can be prone to breakdowns, but has a lot of style.

True, but surely GW is a rare case of a British manufacturing success? Arguably the best minis in the world? Best selling too (probably?).

 Future War Cultist wrote:
That makes sense. What do they do? Cheap out on parts? Treat the workers like gak?

But I thought the parent company was Indian?

Combination of things really. . . So, small caveat, most of my knowledge of this subject comes from "James May's Cars of the People", so people who've lived through the problems, or have more knowledge than me can fill in gaps, or correct some of Mr. May's biases.

After WW2, there was rationing, which meant getting the money approved for parts became an issue. Getting the materials were also an issue (which is partially why we see quite a number of smaller vehicles over on that side of the pond). By the 70s and 80s though, you had a thoroughly disfunctional setup, apparently. James May brought on the chap who's job it was to draw up the designs for the "savior of british motor industry" in the form of the Austin Allegro. . . Now, the drawings this gentleman produced were of a nice, in a 70s sort of way, hatch back. What he said was that his designs were largely scrapped because engineers were told to put certain heaters on the car (they were out of the spares bin) because they were cheaper than the designed ones being done fresh for the new car. Apparently in meetings you had management, engineering, production, and design all speaking 4 different languages, talking past or around each other, to the point where we see 1980s british cars as quite a bit of a joke.

Obviously, this is talking about the 70s and 80s, when the Brits were still largely in control of their own motor industry. . . I cannot speak to how things are now.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
That makes sense. What do they do? Cheap out on parts? Treat the workers like gak?

But I thought the parent company was Indian?

It is now, but the article I was talking about was from a long time ago when there were still British managed car companies, and there was a valid comparison between the performance of British workers under different nationality managements.

The modern global car industry is a wide open field. Nissan is part owned by Renault, and Nissan's chief is French. (He's currently under arrest in Japan.)

 Future War Cultist wrote:
That makes sense. What do they do? Cheap out on parts? Treat the workers like gak?

But I thought the parent company was Indian?

I can only speak of Jags in this regard, but basically yes. Cheap parts (especially electrics), badly run production lines and poor quality control. They'd rather rush the cars out and sell them and let their garages deal with the problems later. I'm sure they've crunched the numbers and figured it makes some kind of financial sense.

Of course this isn't a problem at the truly high end of British car production. McLaren's are some of the most well built, over-engineered cars in the world. And then there's Rolls Royce. Who as well as amazing luxery cars, also make just about every commercial jet engine in use today.

The history of the post-War British vehicle manufacturing sector is a PhD thesis or three, but briefly ...

The class system as applied to industrial management relations
Unions and the Labour party in Britain
Lack of investment
Nationalisation of vehicle manufacturers and the creation of British Leyland

(as an aside, Rolls Royce Motor Cars is a susidiary of BMW, and has been for 20 years now. They only licence the use of the brand from the aircraft engine manufacturing company).

I’ve studied the post war British car industry in depth. In fact I wanted to do it for my dissertation in university, but I settled on doing the Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor. I started an earlier thread about British Leyland in here too. I’m worried about talking about it though because it gets dangerously close to the topic that must not be discussed. I can say though, that the British Motor Corporation should never ever have been allowed to buy Pressed Steel. That’s what started the whole mess.

I would love to know what Jaguar Land Rover’s current assembly process looks like. Like, are they using the proper techniques or is it slap dash and chaotic?